MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062067608 · doi:10.1016/j.acn.2003.09.005

A longitudinal, controlled study of patient complaints following treated mild traumatic brain injury

2003· article· en· W2062067608 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Clinical Neuropsychology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsGlenrose Rehabilitation Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTraumatic brain injuryBonferroni correctionMedicineInjury preventionPoison controlPhysical therapyInternal medicinePsychiatryEmergency medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study provided 3-month follow-up data to a previous paper that compared symptom complaints of patients with mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI) with those of non-injured control participants within 1 month of injury. The 110 MTBI patients and 118 control participants were group-matched on age, gender, education level, and socioeconomic status. As a group, MTBI patients no longer endorsed significantly more symptoms (M = 14.09, S.D. = 10.77) than did the control group (M = 12.56, S.D. = 8.46, P = .232). Only 3 of the 43 queried symptoms were endorsed by significantly more (Bonferroni-corrected P < .00116) MTBI patients than controls. Using the same Bonferroni-corrected criteria, 10 of the 43 symptoms were endorsed at a significantly higher severity level by MTBI patients. Overall, the treated MTBI group's symptom complaints diminished from baseline to 3 months post-injury, with relatively few differences remaining between the two groups.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.925

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.203
GPT teacher head0.478
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it